Archive for August, 2007

You can see it coming, like the locomotive bearing down on Sweet Polly Purebred (sorry–Nell. Sweet Polly Purebred was on Underdog as I’ve been corrected. I knew I should have paid more attention to Saturday morning cartoons!) of “Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties” cartoon fame. It’s picking up speed and the pro-life community is tied to the tracks.

What would this locomotive be, about to rend asunder the pro-life movement?

Well, in a word, the nomination of a pro-abortion or marginally pro-life Republican for president.

Should that happen, the pro-life community would have no where to go, save a third party, should one form. Some would say, better to vote for a conservative in other ways who is pro-abortion, than a liberal in all ways who is pro-abortion. And that argument makes some sense to many. Many conservatives would vote that way even if it left a very bad taste in their mouths.

Should that happen we would hear arguments like, “Don’t be a one-issue voter!” Such a position, we would be told, is naïve, immature, narrow-minded, and not pragmatic. We would be told that if we were to stay home from the polls or vote for a sure-to-lose pro-life candidate, then we would surely put Hillary or Obama in the White House.

Can one issue be so important that it would totally sway one’s vote? Yes! I would not vote for a convicted murderer, a wife beater, an embezzler, a drinking alcoholic, one who fathers and abandons a child. The list could go on and on. Everyone is a one issue voter in many circumstances. It just depends on the issue. In my mind, a candidate who would agree with the pro-death people and possibly appoint judges who would share those views is not fit for office and I, for one, would not vote for such a person.

Who would these Republican candidates be?

Well, Giuliani for one. No question about that.

But what about those so desperate for the nomination that they would say anything, change any position, to win the prize?

I’m thinking of Romney who was as pro-choice as Teddy Kennedy when he was trying to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts. If he were to win the nomination, how long would it take him to “move to the center”, (translated: become pro-choice to try and win the presidency) one second? Maybe two? He would be hailed in the mainstream media (MSM) as “pragmatic”, “bold”, “a rebel in the party”, “brave” rather than the true descriptions of him and his character which would be opportunistic, unprincipled, dishonest and a liar. Some may disagree with me on Romney and say his conversion to the pro-life position is genuine. It just looks to convenient for me to believe it to be real.

John McCain, who has a long history of being pro-life, would, in my judgment, fold like a cheap suit and become pro-choice were he to win the nomination. He almost joined John Kerry as the VP Democrat standard bearer in 2004, which would have required such a switch. He led the charge of the “gang of fourteen” in the Senate who thwarted the nomination of several strongly pro-life candidates. He championed “campaign finance reform”, a euphemism for silencing conservative and pro-life groups from exposing candidate duplicity prior to an election.

I hope the primary process will see these three candidates fall by the way side. Life is that important.

On April 25, 2007 in a New Jersey hospital, a 25 week old baby was delivered by cesarean section, weighing in at 11oz, only 10 inches long. The baby girl was delivered because she had quit growing and her mother’s kidneys were failing. Mom has since recovered and little baby Tamara is now 4lbs 8oz and is ready to go home. The article stated she was going home “without complications”. The March of Dimes (MOD)* spokeswoman said it was “rare” for a baby her size to survive and go home without complications.

Every time a story like this hits the newswire, I imagine the pro-aborts curse and gnash their teeth. How can Dr. Tiller be granting women “choice”, if an 11 ounce baby survives and thrives? How can any self-respecting university or big city abortion service continue to offer 24 week abortions? Where does this leave the so-called D&X abortion, better known as partial birth abortion if babies that size can truly survive outside the womb? How do the women working the abortuareums process this information? Employees of abortion clinics are not immune to this sort of thing. It’s hard enough to be in the “death business”, even for those strongly pro-abortion. Stories like this make it just that much harder. One would have to be hardened and calloused to normal life to read a story like this, and then go on salting out 24 week babies in the abortion chambers. That, or in incredible denial.

I pray that God will use this story, this story of a life He created, life He ordained, and use it to convict women who may be considering a 2nd trimester abortion. Also, that those working in the abortion business would see clearly what they are doing—ending the lives of children, children who would live and breathe, smile and coo, if given the chance. I pray for a crisis of belief in the hearts and minds of everyone involved in abortion, from those on the periphery, and those who actually work in the abortion chambers; receptionists, medical assistants, LPN’s, RN’s, ARNP’s and MD’s.

*Friday, January 14, 2005 March of Dimes…so, tell me again. How Do You “Prevent” Birth Defects?

It turns out that while I was sleeping (absent from my blog), I collected several comments on my posts, many of which asked questions. Since the comments are now so old, I’m almost embarrassed to respond to them, as those who commented are not likely to be looking this way. Oh well. There aren’t that many. So, here are my responses.

To Maureen who worked at a pro-life OBGYN office in Virginia and who commented on “Hurtling Down the Slippery Slope”, thank you for being pro-life. You referred me to the 1968 Catholic encyclical on marriage and family. I share your pro-life views; however I do not share the views of the Catholic Church on contraception and infertility. Each year, when I attend the American Association of Pro-life OBGYN’s (AAPLOG) meeting, our group is invariably drawn into this discussion by some of our Catholic members. We generally have a rousing debate which ends with us agreeing to all be pro-life, but not agreeing on contraception and infertility. So, I appreciate and respect your position, and that of the Catholic Church, and trust you will respect my views as well.

To Jeremy Stein, who commented on several entries, including the “Gardasil” post. Your wife asked your gynecologist if she needed pap smears, since you were monogamous and neither had had other partners. He replied that the risk of abnormal pap smears increased with HPV infection, but that HPV was not the only cause of cervix cancer. Was he lying? Technically, no. A woman can get a type of cervix cancer (adenocarcinoma) of the gland cells that line the inside of the cervix. This type of cancer may not be caused by HPV, but is quite rare, and somewhat associated with long term birth control pill use. But the primary cancer women get (squamous cell carcinoma) has been conclusively proven to always involve HPV. So, I would have told your wife that she no longer needed pap tests. However, gynecologists are taught that men and women are always having affairs, and always have other partners before marriage, so there is really no such thing as a mutually monogamous couple for life. Since that is what gynecologists believe and what they are taught, they always do pap tests. (I’ll bet your wife’s gynecologist’s jaw hit the desk after she left. He may have never met a couple like you.)

Also, to Jeremy, regarding the post on “India—‘Fighting’ Aids (or not)”, you asked if Uganda had had success with abstinence promotion. Yes! But you will never read it in the MSM. I only know of that from Christian sources.

To Tara, who commented on the “Speaking with Abortion-Minded Women” post, and wondered about women who come in with a very no-big-deal attitude and just don’t want to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. I have no good answer for that except prayer, a kind and loving attitude and a firm position that she is making the biggest mistake of her life. That, and get her in for an U/S at a pro-life OBGYN office! I have certainly spoken with many women with that attitude and it is sad and tragic and depressing. Regarding older women with babies who may have disabilities, it is easy to get swept up in the story and tragedy of it all. There is a temptation to agree with them in their decision, but even disabled life deserves a chance. In those situations where the prognosis is death, either before birth, or shortly after, it is even more important to encourage the woman to carry the baby and let it die naturally, rather than add to her soul the burden of killing the defenseless child. Women already feel tremendous guilt at conceiving a less-than-perfect child. Adding to the guilt with an abortion makes it even worse. Regarding those disabilities that result in lifelong mental or physical handicap, we do not know what plan our Sovereign God may have for that disabled life. That life may touch others in a way none other can. The child needs that chance to live.

To Chris, who responded to the same post, I’ve copied your comment because it is so important.

Hello,I found your blog from the pro-life bloggers web-page. I have an ethics question that I would like a pro-life physician’s perspective on. I am a first year medical student, and recently in my medical interviewing class I had to interview an actress posing as a very distressed young woman who wanted an abortion. I told her from the start that I would like to help her with sorting out her emotions and finding a solution to her dilemma, but that she should know that I was morally opposed to abortion and would not help her get one–not even by referring her to someone who would. My instructor was not sure how to handle that, so she spoke with several ethicists and came to the conclusion that medical standards demand that one must at least provide an abortion-seeking woman with an “unbiased” person who could help her get an abortion. I cannot help but disagree, I have no intention of directing a patient to someone who will help her kill her baby (this will not affect my grade in the class, because it is assumed that my fictional attending will see her anyway.) But I was wondering if most Christian doctors would also not even point her out to a pro-choice doctor. Do you refer women who want uterine sizings to a doctor whom you know will perform one, or do you tell her that she must find another doctor herself?Thank you,ChrisChris Emlyn Homepage 04.14.05 – 7:02 pm #

First, you should understand that the term “Medical Ethics” is a euphemism for “Lack of Medical Ethics”. I am convinced there is very little that is ethical in the opinions of those who call themselves experts in medical ethics, especially those at academic institutions. Medical ethics worships at the alter of ‘patient autonomy’, ‘abortion rights’ and ‘socialized medicine’. Of course they would say you must refer an abortion-minded woman to someone who would help her obtain an abortion! But you do not need to do that, nor are you required to do that. And, no I do not—ever. I have not—ever. And, I intend to never refer a woman for an abortion or to a place that will help her get an abortion. And that is OK. The ethicists can rant and rave all they want. Stick to what you know is right. Her autonomy does not trump your Christian moral views or the long-standing Christian ethic of valuing life. They want you to think that. They will conference and tut-tut about how stupid, reactionary, naïve, misinformed and mean you are. And, you will be considered a woman-hater! They will want to flunk you, try to stop you from getting into an OBGYN residency and will ostracize you if you are in an OBGYN residency and they find you are rocking the boat regarding abortion. (Personal experience—it’s a long story.) What other Christian doctors do, I can’t say. Except that the CMDS and AAPLOG would not ever refer for abortion or refer to anyone who would help the patient get an abortion. On the CMDS web site, you can download their medical ethics positions, which are quite different from the ones you will encounter in your training. (I think you have to be a member.)

To Mohamed and his comment about the “Brave New Liberal World—Forced Prostitution” and the increasing rate of HIV/AIDS in Bangladesh, you have a difficult job. The answer, though, is not in targeting sex workers. The answer is to encourage no sex until marriage, then one partner for life.

To RC regarding the same post and the web site link that said the story was not quite true. Could be. I can only go by the sources I have and try to use reliable sources. Did the UK Telegraph publish a correction?

To Jeremy Stein and his comment about the Cynicism post and his observation that he had not viewed cynicism as a sin, but was convicted. It’s a battle I have had and still have. I fall into a cynical attitude much too quickly and too easily, but I do not believe Christ or any of the apostles were ever cynics.

To Northman and his comment on the Morning-After Pill (MAP) post and the article which he listed saying that the morning after pill actually prevented conception and therefore was a treatment pro-lifers should support. Sorry. I’ll believe the data when I see it. To me, the article is bunk. The MAP may prevent pregnancy, but it would seem to me that it would need to be given well before intercourse would occur in order to prevent conception. In which case it would be the “morning before pill”. Unfortunately, the MAP is given much later in most cases and is intended and can and does cause an early abortion. It will get no support from me. (I do not believe that the author of that article was pro-life. It looked like a hit piece to me.)

To Arlene and Jeremy who both commented on the “March of Dimes” (MOD) post. Thanks for your comments. I predict that it won’t be long before the MOD openly declares its sympathy for abortion and “women’s rights”. We’ll see.

To Tammy who commented about the “Birth Control” post and how the decrease in birth control use was viewed very negatively, thanks for your affirmation.

To Sam Perry who commented on the same post in a negative way, you obviously have not delivered many babies. You stated that I have not walked in a woman’s shoes who understand the trauma of an unwanted child. In 30 years of doing this job (OBGYN—I’ve attended thousands of births), I have seen many unwanted pregnancies. I can count on one hand the number of unwanted babies I have encountered. An unwanted pregnancy does not translate into an unwanted child. In fact, it almost never does. The “trauma of an unwanted child” is an argument with no standing in truth. I hope this helps. Your post drips cynicism. (See above.)

To Laurel who wondered if I was an NFP practitioner (Natural Family Planning), yes and no. I’m not a member of any NFP group, nor have I taken any special training in it, except a conference at Creighton. I do encourage it and help couple who are interested in it.

To Tammy and Charise who commented on my first post and were so encouraging, a warm thank you. God bless.

Discovery Health, a cable TV channel, has introduced the world to the Duggar family, a conservative Christian family now with 17 children. The latest, little Jennifer Duggar, entered the world just a few days ago. The TV shows documents their lives. It is refreshing to see a family that does not need “Nanny 911”. (I’ve heard of some of these shows from other family members as I no longer watch TV. I’ve never seen “Nanny 911, but I know it’s premise. I have seen a few episodes of the Duggar’s on Discovery.)

My favorite blog site is ProLife Blogs, a composite of prolife bloggers whose post all show up in the order they are published. Scrolling down it, I learned of the Duggar’s new edition. One blogger, Adam’s Blog, (links on Adam’s Blog will take you into the libertine and angry liberal world; full of lousy logic, idiotic ideas and lurid language–proceed there with caution) was kind enough to go into some of the liberal sites where extremely negative comments regarding the Duggar’s and their 17 children were made. Liberals made all the expected arguments. Poverty, lack of attention, hurting the planet, psychosis, Christian robots, unable to think for themselves and just general outrage that a family could be that large.

Being a member of a moderately large family (3 brother, 3 sisters, all close in age), I feel somewhat qualified to comment about it.

First and foremost, being a member of a family, whatever size, is better in my mind than not being born at all, as 35 to 40 million of us have been disposed of prior to taking our first breath, thanks to Roe v Wade in 1973. Breathing is good. Seeing the sunshine is good. Hearing the birds, laughing, learning, loving–these are all good things that those aborted will never experience. Being born poor, being born to the very young or very old, to the single mom, to the welfare mom, to the college mom whose BF wants her to abort and whose parents will surely never understand is better, dear reader, than never seeing the light of day.

I recall growing up in rural SD with so many siblings, so close. (Six in six years) We were not as organized as the Duggar’s, not as disciplined as the Duggar’s, not as well-to-do as the Duggar’s, (few were in rural SD in the 50’s and 60’s), not as well behaved as the Duggar’s and not as kind or helpful as the Duggar children I see on TV. But we were taught to love, we did play together, work together, cheer for each other and support each other. We also argued, fought, scrapped, teased and, to my shame, made life miserable for my two younger sisters. Somehow, out of poverty (this was prior to welfare being available), large family, rural, in a poor state with an arguably poor educational system, we survived. Now older, we are two MD’s, one PhD and author, one JD, one principal and one former principal and one former TV news anchor, now a stay-at-home mom.

My older brother is the most dear person in my life, except for my wife. I feel a closeness to my siblings that I feel with no other people, except maybe my own children, even though we don’t see each other all that often. I wouldn’t trade my childhood and growing up experience for anything.

I suspect the Duggar experience will be similar, except the Duggar’s have been homeschooled and will have a better understanding of the Christian world view, the secular world view and the arguments for and against. I think they will be less likely to be swayed by the authoritative, liberal, I-know-everything-and-you-are-a-conservative-idiot liberal professors they will meet in college.

So God bless the Duggar’s! Were that there were more like them!

(And yes, pregnancy #17 at age 39 is high risk, but can be done, obviously.)

On a personal note, I have not been blogging recently do to some health issues, but was surprised to find comments about some of my posts. How nice! I hope to post more frequently and respond in a timely way to any comments made. Thanks.